Yesterday said:

---

Red Pear Realty said:

---

I own a lot of houses and consider myself a pretty "free markets" type of voter. The problem with our current situation is that corporations have access to cheaper capital than the average person, which gives the corporations an unfair advantage over the average home buyer. If that continues unchecked, your children and grandchildren will truly own nothing and like it.

---

If you allow government to cap the buyers and specifically tell you who you can sell your house to then you own nothing. And for the record, none of us own anything in Texas. We simply rent it from the state. Advocating for more government control over your property is not the freedom anyone is looking for. Let the free market work. When PE is burned for billions during the next crash the market will reset. That's how it works.

---

No one ones any property in the United States as you require the assistance of the US government to keep it from being Chinese, Russian, Iranian, Mexican or even Canadian property.

Your property deed is merely a license to use the property within various constraints for the period of time the deed remains in effect and in your name.

And with eminent domain the gubmit can still come along and cancel those rights and confiscate property, within certain rules of course.

If you truly owned your property, you could do illegal things on it without recourse. I don't think anyone really wants that in modern society.

The government is just fine if it's owned by the Chinese. They are not keeping it from being Chinese owned.

John Fisher Pessimist said:

---

Good Trump. This a pretty localized problem, but has real effects in some bigger housing markets. Seems like a no brainer to fix.

Boomers bought their home for 5 cents and have seen astronomical appreciation (orders of magnitude more than wage growth). Good for them I guess.

They also now control these corporations which artificially put upward pressure on prices for first time buyers. It's not crazy to think that pressure should be relieved especially when we have such a shortage of housing supply in the US.

Newer generations being effectively locked out of home buying is a bad thing for a society.

ETA: The biggest opponents of this will be homeowners whose homes have already appreciated at historic numbers and did not have to compete with corporate buyers for their SFR when they bought their homes (i.e. their free market was different in kind). This isn't as simple as they want to make it.

---

We don't even have a shortage of housing supply. If you freed up all the houses that sit unused and owned by corporations (and I don't mean your family trust), prices would go down substantially. Investment firms are buying up houses to use as investment vehicles with no intention of anyone living in it.

Teslag said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Teslag said:

---

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

---

As a free market supporter I normally would agree with you - but allowing PE to continue to buy residential homes is the quickest way to make it where most Americans can only afford to rent a home their entire lives. Individual buyers just can't compete with investment buying in the grand scheme of things.

---

You are making an emotional argument without giving thought to what you are really saying. That's what liberals do.

If I list my home for $500k and a young first time buying couple offer $505k plus need closing assistance and a corporate buyer offers $600k in cash that's an extra $100k for me. You would effectively use the power of government to institute a tax on me for $100k and then redistribute that to "less fortunate" to provide a "public good". You need to admit that's what it is and that you are okay with it. And then remember to be consistent the next time a liberal proposes they do the same with any other investment asset you have. Because at that point you've set the precedent that other people are entitled to a share of your investment assets because it's "good for society".

---

Now put yourself in the first time home buyers shoes instead of the seller and don't make an emotional argument when you explain why it's ok for Blackrock to take the house for 95K over your fair offer.

Over_ed said:

---

It may be small, but anything to drop housing prices and/or education prices is likely a win for younger adults and their families.

---

If only we knew what the primary reason is for higher housing and education prices....

Housing prices are already falling pretty fast in DFW right now. I expect that to continue at least another year with or without this ban.

javajaws said:

---

Teslag said:

---

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

---

As a free market supporter I normally would agree with you - but allowing PE to continue to buy residential homes is the quickest way to make it where most Americans can only afford to rent a home their entire lives. Individual buyers just can't compete with investment buying in the grand scheme of things.

---

Define "PE"
Are they the same people who cause chemtrails and microplastics?

eater of the list said:

---

John Fisher Pessimist said:

---

Good Trump. This a pretty localized problem, but has real effects in some bigger housing markets. Seems like a no brainer to fix.

Boomers bought their home for 5 cents and have seen astronomical appreciation (orders of magnitude more than wage growth). Good for them I guess.

They also now control these corporations which artificially put upward pressure on prices for first time buyers. It's not crazy to think that pressure should be relieved especially when we have such a shortage of housing supply in the US.

Newer generations being effectively locked out of home buying is a bad thing for a society.

ETA: The biggest opponents of this will be homeowners whose homes have already appreciated at historic numbers and did not have to compete with corporate buyers for their SFR when they bought their homes (i.e. their free market was different in kind). This isn't as simple as they want to make it.

---

We don't even have a shortage of housing supply. If you freed up all the houses that sit unused and owned by corporations (and I don't mean your family trust), prices would go down substantially. Investment firms are buying up houses to use as investment vehicles with no intention of anyone living in it.

---

SF housing stock is around 86 million. Institutional investors own between 0.3% to 1.0%. I show 1% of 86 million as 860 thousand. Most estimates show SF housing shortfall in excess of 4 million.

If you add institutional investors that own SF rental, the high end of that estimate is an additional 3% or 2.58 million. Even combining those together you would still be short.

But rentals overall are 15% or so of all SF housing units, so institutional investor owned is just a piece of that.


So yes, we have a housing shortage. And you can exclude second and third homes that may sit unoccupied as they are typically located in very high cost of living locations or locations not suitable for a working family.

This isn't Dubai. There is not a glut of institutional investor owned SF homes being held empty for future sales.

unintended consequences on line 2...

Over_ed said:

---

It may be small, but anything to drop housing prices and/or education prices is likely a win for younger adults and their families.

---

It likely won't reduce prices, and anyone speculating with macro data, or segmented market specific data doesn't know what the outcome will be

Quote:

---

corporations have access to cheaper capital than the average person, which gives the corporations an unfair advantage over the average home buyer.

---

Corporations also take more risk than an 'average home buyer'
Individual families are taking out 30-yr mortgages at ~6.5%. 10-year yields are above 4.4% today, and 30-year yields are around 5%. So I'm guessing corporations are about 1.5-2% lower in rates for a higher, shorter risk profile. Seems like that 1.5-2% could get squeezed pretty fast

MidlandOil$ said:

---

Hopefully this gets across the finish line and something gets passed. This is a smaller problem now but could definitely get out of control.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/insight/trump-urges-house-to-pass-corporate-homebuying-ban/gm-GM2E00B97E?gemSnapshotKey=GM2E00B97E-snapshot-56&uxmode=ruby

---

Great now go after Private equity (PE) firms that are buying and ruining franchises (IMHO).

Pizza said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

It may be small, but anything to drop housing prices and/or education prices is likely a win for younger adults and their families.

---

It won't reduce prices, unless they are required to reduce physical assets by some amount & have to try and offload homes; and even then it's difficult to say what the outcome would be.

---

It will worsen things, both in pricing and other ways (aforementioned "unintended consequences" ), like all liberal idiocy does.

The key insight here is don't be an average buyer. Get an education, get a high paying job, have high credit scores. The government should not be getting involved in free markets.

cef88 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Teslag said:

---

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

---

As a free market supporter I normally would agree with you - but allowing PE to continue to buy residential homes is the quickest way to make it where most Americans can only afford to rent a home their entire lives. Individual buyers just can't compete with investment buying in the grand scheme of things.

---

You are making an emotional argument without giving thought to what you are really saying. That's what liberals do.

If I list my home for $500k and a young first time buying couple offer $505k plus need closing assistance and a corporate buyer offers $600k in cash that's an extra $100k for me. You would effectively use the power of government to institute a tax on me for $100k and then redistribute that to "less fortunate" to provide a "public good". You need to admit that's what it is and that you are okay with it. And then remember to be consistent the next time a liberal proposes they do the same with any other investment asset you have. Because at that point you've set the precedent that other people are entitled to a share of your investment assets because it's "good for society".

---

Now put yourself in the first time home buyers shoes instead of the seller and don't make an emotional argument why it's ok for Blackrock to take the house for 95K over your fair offer.

---

You know that Sellers can often stipulate that the buyer not be an LLC, a corporation, or an institutional investor, correct? The Seller is making it "OK"

I am always amazed with Conservatives who advocate for more government. Talk about RINO's.

BigRobSA said:

---

Pizza said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

It may be small, but anything to drop housing prices and/or education prices is likely a win for younger adults and their families.

---

It won't reduce prices, unless they are required to reduce physical assets by some amount & have to try and offload homes; and even then it's difficult to say what the outcome would be.

---

It will worsen things, both in pricing and other ways (aforementioned "unintended consequences" ), like all liberal idiocy does.

---

Adding supply to some markets in Texas which are already bordering on oversupply or are fully in it could push prices downward quickly if investors are willing to take the cuts required to sell. (You obviously know that)

In the above scenario it could re set comps, and could really hurt builders, but I think the average American might benefit?

I agree though it's all idiocy, from top to bottom. I have no idea what the magnitude of the effect from such legislation would be though.

Weird times.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Dirt 05 said:

---

Eight of the ten largest publicly traded firms in the real estate sector are paying dividends in excess of their earnings per share - (WELL, PLD, EQIX, AMT, DLR, O, PSA, VTR). That means these firms are dipping into reserves or financing the payment of dividends to investors.

The big push on "back to office" is driven by the FED attempting to find a means to shore up real estate loans that are coming up for refinancing in the post covid world with lower occupancies and higher interest rates. The problem is greatly exacerbated by the massive federal debt and budget deficit which has taken aware their ability to drive rates lower because buyers don't want low yield US Treasuries.

---

These firms are buying up single-family housing stock? You shacking up in medical offices, storage building and data centers?

WELL Welltower Inc. -A leading healthcare REIT focused on senior housing, medical offices, and post-acute care facilities.

PLD Prologis, Inc. - The world's largest industrial REIT, specializing in logistics warehouses, distribution centers, and e-commerce facilities.

EQIX Equinix, Inc. - A global digital infrastructure REIT that owns and operates data centers, providing colocation, interconnection, and connectivity services.

AMT American Tower Corporation - A major global REIT owning and operating wireless communications towers and related infrastructure.

DLR Digital Realty Trust, Inc. - A leading data center REIT focused on owning, acquiring, and operating data centers for cloud, tech, and enterprise customers.

O Realty Income Corporation ("The Monthly Dividend Company") - A retail and commercial REIT known for single-tenant, triple-net leased properties (e.g., retail stores, restaurants) and consistent monthly dividends.

PSA Public Storage - The largest self-storage REIT in the U.S., owning and operating self-storage facilities.

VTR Ventas, Inc. - A healthcare REIT with a portfolio including senior housing, medical offices, hospitals, and life sciences properties.

---

How confident are you that these descriptions are accurate?

I have no opinion either way, but I do know that what an investment firm says and does isn't always the same. REITs that invest in casinos often advertise that they have entertainment and hospitality properties.

This is democrat Trump....not good.

Yesterday said:

---

Red Pear Realty said:

---

I own a lot of houses and consider myself a pretty "free markets" type of voter. The problem with our current situation is that corporations have access to cheaper capital than the average person, which gives the corporations an unfair advantage over the average home buyer. If that continues unchecked, your children and grandchildren will truly own nothing and like it.

---

If you allow government to cap the buyers and specifically tell you who you can sell your house to then you own nothing. And for the record, none of us own anything in Texas. We simply rent it from the state. Advocating for more government control over your property is not the freedom anyone is looking for. Let the free market work. When PE is burned for billions during the next crash the market will reset. That's how it works.

---

Exactly. The next crash has already started. Corporate buyers will be begging to never buy another residential house soon. Right after the government bails them out for hundreds of billions of dollars.

I dont hold any of those companies / REITs so not concerned. Just saw the ticker list and asked Grok+ who they is.

I have a good friend and business partner that deals in the housing sector and so I have my advisor steer clear. Plenty of other industries for me to park my treasure in without having to worry about what we discuss in business and over drinks.

I do not think Trump is real serious on this. More of a bit of fodder to dust out there to appease some whilst pissing off others.

That's simply my opinion.

The reasons why corporations and foreign companies are buying single houses:

1) The long-term mortgage rates do not properly reflect inflation risk. Buy equity in a hard asset, borrow money at a rate that isn't reflective of real risks, profit. It's as simple as that.

2) Foreign countries still want to manipulate the currency exchanges, but don't want to hold $$$s in their banks. They want to hold hard US assets. So, you buy a bunch of $$$'s with your crappy local currency, put those $$$'s in the bank, use local leverage, and buy US hard assets. Not as effective as holding $$$'s as treasury reserves, but still gets the job done.

What to do about it? Don't prevent sharp money from investing in undervalued assets, reduce the market manipulation that is making those assets undervalued.

1) Quit spending money
2) Quit printing money to pay for the spending
3) Quit manipulating interest rates to cover for the money printing that you are doing to pay for the spending, which is artificially inflating home prices even more than general inflation.
4) Go back to 1, and repeat until you have a balanced budget.
Distant 5) Fight foreign currency manipulation through tariffs / quotas.

You think a housing crash has started?

cef88 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Teslag said:

---

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

---

As a free market supporter I normally would agree with you - but allowing PE to continue to buy residential homes is the quickest way to make it where most Americans can only afford to rent a home their entire lives. Individual buyers just can't compete with investment buying in the grand scheme of things.

---

You are making an emotional argument without giving thought to what you are really saying. That's what liberals do.

If I list my home for $500k and a young first time buying couple offer $505k plus need closing assistance and a corporate buyer offers $600k in cash that's an extra $100k for me. You would effectively use the power of government to institute a tax on me for $100k and then redistribute that to "less fortunate" to provide a "public good". You need to admit that's what it is and that you are okay with it. And then remember to be consistent the next time a liberal proposes they do the same with any other investment asset you have. Because at that point you've set the precedent that other people are entitled to a share of your investment assets because it's "good for society".

---

Now put yourself in the first time home buyers shoes instead of the seller and don't make an emotional argument why it's ok for Blackrock to take the house for 95K over your fair offer.

---

Because it's my ****ing house to sell to whomever want. Who are you tell me what is "fair" for my assets?

flown-the-coop said:

---

You think a housing crash has started?

---

Yes, it 100% has. We've been in the build-up since 2023.

The amount of negative equity in this Country and people in expensive homes in Texas suburbs with $5,000/mo mortgage payments that shouldn't be is astronomical. All it will take is some of these layoffs to continue and we will see an armageddon in the Texas housing market. I hope we don't for a multitude of reasons.

Dropping rates will hurt the economy bigly, but if they don't drop them and drop them very soon before equity drops too much people won't be able to refinance out of these 7% rates and we're going to see an earthquake of foreclosures.

Good!

Do it Trump and Congress! Cut the corps out of this.

Teslag said:

---

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

---

No.

You will sell according to existing laws. If this passes, you won't be able to sell to a corp which wants to invest. So you won't be able to sell to "whoever you want".

This is because people and society are topmost in priority, not corporations (though we confuse that a lot).


Next you will say that you should be able to bring in anyone from anywhere in the world to live in America. That you can work for anyone and anyone can work for a US corp. The world doesn't work that way.

FWTXAg said:

---

Many will clap for big government.

This will just make the crash all the worse.

---

A housing crash is actually healthy. Too much bubble from immigrants, and H1Bs buying houses that locals cannot afford. Corps have also bid it up.

Kick corps out.

Teslag said:

---

cef88 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Teslag said:

---

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

---

As a free market supporter I normally would agree with you - but allowing PE to continue to buy residential homes is the quickest way to make it where most Americans can only afford to rent a home their entire lives. Individual buyers just can't compete with investment buying in the grand scheme of things.

---

You are making an emotional argument without giving thought to what you are really saying. That's what liberals do.

If I list my home for $500k and a young first time buying couple offer $505k plus need closing assistance and a corporate buyer offers $600k in cash that's an extra $100k for me. You would effectively use the power of government to institute a tax on me for $100k and then redistribute that to "less fortunate" to provide a "public good". You need to admit that's what it is and that you are okay with it. And then remember to be consistent the next time a liberal proposes they do the same with any other investment asset you have. Because at that point you've set the precedent that other people are entitled to a share of your investment assets because it's "good for society".

---

Now put yourself in the first time home buyers shoes instead of the seller and don't make an emotional argument why it's ok for Blackrock to take the house for 95K over your fair offer.

---

Because it's my ****ing house to sell to whomever want. Who are you tell me what is "fair" for my assets?

---

A) I was talking from the Buyers side to counter what the poster was saying.
B) When you list your home for sale for $500K and a buyer offers $505K, I think any rational human would say that is a fair offer. The unfair portion is Blackrock offering an extra 95K at an interest rate that is materially lower than what the home buyer could get. Please note, I'm not arguing whether it is fair or unfair for the seller, I'm saying that the home buyer is at an unfair advantage against corporations.

Teslag said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Teslag said:

---

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

---

As a free market supporter I normally would agree with you - but allowing PE to continue to buy residential homes is the quickest way to make it where most Americans can only afford to rent a home their entire lives. Individual buyers just can't compete with investment buying in the grand scheme of things.

---

You are making an emotional argument without giving thought to what you are really saying. That's what liberals do.

If I list my home for $500k and a young first time buying couple offer $505k plus need closing assistance and a corporate buyer offers $600k in cash that's an extra $100k for me. You would effectively use the power of government to institute a tax on me for $100k and then redistribute that to "less fortunate" to provide a "public good". You need to admit that's what it is and that you are okay with it. And then remember to be consistent the next time a liberal proposes they do the same with any other investment asset you have. Because at that point you've set the precedent that other people are entitled to a share of your investment assets because it's "good for society".

---

What good is the extra $100k going to do you when you go to buy a house and another corporation (or maybe the same one you sold to) is offering $150k more than you?

Corporations buying up homes with cheap capital is driving up home prices. You don't really benefit by selling at the inflated prices when you have to turn around and buy at inflated prices. All that happens is first time buyers get priced out and are forced to rent forever.

Are you completely opposed to eminent domain and city zoning restrictions? I'll assume not, so this would be just another example of restricting private property rights for the public good.

Teslag said:

---

cef88 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Teslag said:

---

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

---

As a free market supporter I normally would agree with you - but allowing PE to continue to buy residential homes is the quickest way to make it where most Americans can only afford to rent a home their entire lives. Individual buyers just can't compete with investment buying in the grand scheme of things.

---

You are making an emotional argument without giving thought to what you are really saying. That's what liberals do.

If I list my home for $500k and a young first time buying couple offer $505k plus need closing assistance and a corporate buyer offers $600k in cash that's an extra $100k for me. You would effectively use the power of government to institute a tax on me for $100k and then redistribute that to "less fortunate" to provide a "public good". You need to admit that's what it is and that you are okay with it. And then remember to be consistent the next time a liberal proposes they do the same with any other investment asset you have. Because at that point you've set the precedent that other people are entitled to a share of your investment assets because it's "good for society".

---

Now put yourself in the first time home buyers shoes instead of the seller and don't make an emotional argument why it's ok for Blackrock to take the house for 95K over your fair offer.

---

Because it's my ****ing house to sell to whomever want. Who are you tell me what is "fair" for my assets?

---

With that attitude, you are better off living in some remote area in Montana, like Ted Kaczynski. There, you can do whatever you want.

When you live in a community/society, everyone's actions must be in line with the long term good of the community. Here I pay for my local community college through my property taxes. I've never taken a class there in my life. But the deal is, if I want to live in this awesome town, I better pay for things I don't necessarily use. I get to use the library for free though. And schools.

This may piss you off but that is how the world should work. Laws cannot be made for some individual to benefit him/her self.

Quote:

---

I'll assume not, so this would be just another example of restricting private property rights for the public good.

---

Feel the Bern!

i'm ok with investment properties. I am not ok with cornering a market by buying everything up to jack up the prices.

For the eleventy billionth time, BlackRock does not invest in single family homes! It is likely Blackstone that you are thinking of.